It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

page: 27
96
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
then why didnt the rest of the "debris" make the same movement?




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
branty:

perhaps the object in question was very small and very close to the camera?

[edit on 2-3-2009 by FortyTwo]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JimOberg
What nobody is forgetting is that you are the only known person on this planet who seems to believe the space shuttle capable of flying up to geosynchronous altitude and dropping off payloads, secretly.


STS-51C: Classified DoD Mission

Mission: Department of Defense
Space Shuttle: Discovery
Launch Pad: 39A
Launch Weight: 250,891 pounds
Launched: January 24, 1985 at 2:50:00 p.m. EST
Landing Site: Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Landing: January 27, 1985 at 4:23:23 p.m. EST
Landing Weight: Classified

Hmmm wonder what they brought BACK?



---------------------------------------------------------------

STS-51-C launched a secret, Magnum ELINT (ELectronic INTtelligence) gathering satellite into geosynchronous orbit. An identical one was also launched by STS-33 and STS-38.


Mission name: STS-27
Shuttle: Atlantis
Launch pad: 39-B
Launch: December 2, 1988, 9:30:34 a.m. EST
Landing: December 6, 1988, 3:36:11 p.m. PST
Duration: 4 days, 9 hours, 5 minutes, 37 seconds
Orbit altitude: Classified
Orbit inclination: 57.0 degrees


-------------------------------------------------------------------

Mission name: STS-36
Shuttle: Atlantis
Launch pad: 39-A
Launch: February 28, 1990, 2:50:22 a.m. EST
Landing: March 4, 1990, 10:08:44 a.m. PST
Duration: 4 days, 10 hours, 18 minutes, 22 seconds
Orbit altitude: 132 nautical miles (245 km)
Orbit inclination: 62.0 degrees

The sixth shuttle launch dedicated entirely to the Department of Defense, STS-36's payload is classified. STS-36 launched a single satellite, 1990-019B (USA-53), also described as AFP-731. Other objects (1990-019C-G) have appeared in orbit since its deployment.


Ah yes thge Infamous MISTY.....


DoD Mission Patch






Once again, thank you Zorgon!

Ok JimbO...satisfied? Perhaps you might want to make that public apology now before you dig yourself deeper into that Never Anything Significant Acknowledged abyss??

I will gladly accept it....once you make it.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 2-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortyTwo
branty:

perhaps the object in question was very small and very close to the camera?



If the object was very small and very close to the camera, why were not the other objects of similar size also affected by whatever made the obvious one, move in the manner as the object in question?

Were those others so far off into the distance that they would be much much larger to see?

According to our resident NASA expert, that object is the result of a recent waste dump, so assuming that is what it is, the other bright objects in the video must also be from that same waste dump....yet they just sit there like as if bolted to the background while that one lone object does its turn and burn.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   
I wouldnt hold your breath RF, seems iffy that jim suddenly appeared when depth was on his last legs


I have been watching this thread but to be honest havent got the time or energy to give to these pair.

Hats of to you though RF , zorgon & easy



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by cropmuncher
I wouldnt hold your breath RF, seems iffy that jim suddenly appeared when depth was on his last legs


I have been watching this thread but to be honest havent got the time or energy to give to these pair.

Hats of to you though RF , zorgon & easy


Thanks cropmuncher! Much appreciated.


And you are probably right...expecting an apology would be like expecting No Anomaly Seen Alright to openly Now Admitting Significant Anomalies in the next press release.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
If that turn and burn is not the result of the shuttle taking off in the same direction...then I give up



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Ah but thats assuming that all the particles pictured are of the same substance. As has been suggested in this thread already, different substances react differently to stimulus. Could be that there was a single particle of say for instance a metal , and a large number of gas particles. I mean without knowing exactly what was being vented, or released there, its hard to make a proper examination, but you really shouldnt utterly rule this out until/unless we figure out what exactly was released.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


It looks like my problems in getting other people understand what I write are getting worse.


As I said in the post in which I posted the magnet experiment, "I do not mean to say that the reason for the change in direction of the object was a magnetic influence, this is only to show that it is easier than it may look for an inanimate object, once moving, to be affected by unseen external forces."

This was to try to show that inanimate object can change their trajectories when affected by external, invisible forces.

In the same way the magnet makes a turn to align itself with the Earth's magnetic field, the object in the OP video may be changing direction because of some external, invisible force.

And I never said that object is an ice particle.

PS: I don't know if ice reacts in the same way, but as you probably remember from your studies, the diamagnetic properties of water may affect it, although for that the water must be in the presence of a very strong magnetic field.

For magnetism to affect a water particle in the way we see it move in the video it would be needed an extremely strong magnetic field, but also a magnetic field that would not extend its influence much further from its proximity, because in that way the object would be starting to feel the influence sooner and would not react in the way we see it.

So, no, I don't think water or ice would be affected by magnetism in the way we see in the video.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Ok JimbO...satisfied? Perhaps you might want to make that public apology now before you dig yourself deeper into that Never Anything Significant Acknowledged abyss??

I will gladly accept it....once you make it.




En-TIRE-ly satisfied, RF. We have now established beyond any doubt
that nothing you ever claim about space shuttle operations is ever
remotely credible. Self-delusion and fantasy, nothing more, always was.

Now to return to the ongoing constructive discussion of the videos...

ADD: To recapitulate for those who missed the earlier toe-to-toes:

RF insists the shuttle is capable of flying out 22,000+ miles from Earth to deploy communications satellites, and as proof of that, he refers to communications satellites launched by the shuttle. But as already posted by more reality-based threaders, these satellites were attached to booster rockets, and were deployed from the shuttle at about 200-250 miles up, and then used their rockets to attain the 22,000+ mile altitude while the shuttle remained in its original low orbit.

The bigger issue is that RF claims the shuttle has 'secret capabilities' such as a much higher operational altitude, perhaps relevant to activity videoed out the window. He claims insights into the shuttle superior to anyone else on this thread.

His crowing that Zorgon's posting of fact sheets about 'geosynchronous payloads' confirms his view, actually pretty clearly demonstrates he doesn't know that those satellites attained high altitutde using their own attached rocket stages, NOT by being pushed out the payload bay once the shuttle itself flew to those higher altitudes.

This is cluelessness at a truly cosmic scale.

And understanding how a shuttle operates -- and the features of normal operation -- is central to understanding potential prosaic explanations of the unearthly and admittedly weird-looking scenes on these videos. Insight into their causes will not come from deliberate, arrogant ignorance, a la RF, but from more detailed understandings of their context (what RF calls 'clutter').

There have been a wide range of useful suggestions and demonstrations and evidence posted here in recent days. It has been the most productive symposium about a 'shuttle UFO video' I think I've ever seen, thanks to all posters, including those willing to provide detailed arguments for the UFO interpretation [detailed enough to be challenged and evaluated]. That makes everybody 'winners' here, as understanding of a highly popular mystery is improved.

Kudos all around.




[edit on 2-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by franspeakfree
But I still stick with no unseen force in a vacuum that can slow an object though.


Can't face the embarrassment or ego-hit of having made a mistake? Come on, grown-ups learn to deal with that throughout their lives.


No no, I am not embarassed or ego hit, I totally accept that I do not know everything and can learn by others on this site. Thats how we grow.

However, saying that one particular unseen force in a vacuum of space can slow just ONE object and not effect the rest is not scientifically possible is it?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Blimey Jim, from reading your first quote on this thread to the one above mine now, you certainly sound like a different man. Its hard not to get drawn in to the whirlpool of criticism/attack on this site isn't it.

Puting all the anger and criticisms to one side can we not just agree to disagree?

One side of the fence is calling it a UFO - Not necessarily E.T controlled but favourable) The other, an ice crystal that conveniently slows down and shoots off in another direction. (see what I did there)

You have to admit though if you really aren't in the loop, when disclosure goes ahead, you are going to feel such a high amount of resentment towards the company you defend.

At that time I will put my opinions to one side and give you the utmost compassion.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Yes its perfectly possible. Substances do not all react the same way to stimulus. This is scientificaly proven as a principle. Please stop saying that the basics of chemistry and physics are based on impossibility. Its becoming tiresome watching people make fools of themselves this way. Honestly , the most basic knowlege of science would tell you that things react differently to like stimulus. If you have ever been to high school, you would likely be aware that if you put metals in acid, they all react differently . If you put some metals in water, they combust. There are examples of the diversity of physical matter, all over the mundane world, and if you just open your eyes just a little bit, you will find beautiful and amazing new ways to deny ignorance.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
....saying that one particular unseen force in a vacuum of space can slow just ONE object and not effect the rest is not scientifically possible is it?


Why not? Effluent flows near the shuttle -- and I've listed at least half a dozen sources of such processes -- are limited in time and space, and can be expected to impact [literally] only those particles that they encounter, not those particles that they don't reach.

But how can you tell which will be 'reached', and which not? That's a challenge.

The perceptual challenge is to realize that in space, in a vacuum, there's no 'veiling glare' that makes more distant objects on Earth, in the atmosphere, look more washed out. So you can look at an airplane half a mile high, and an identical scale model perhaps a hundred feet away, and even if they are the same angular size, your eye-brain senses can tell the difference, usually, because of the haziness effects. Take 1950's Godzilla movies as an example -- the light/shadow crispness shows it's a guy in paper mache, not a 500-foot-tall citty stomper..

On space videos, the eye-brain tries to substitute 'brightness' for angular size, and this too is seductively self-deceptive -- as RF's posts show. 'Brightness' on a video image is a function both of the original object's reflectivity and physical size, but also of the accidental presence or absence of other bright objects in the camera field of view. The shuttle cameras from which most of these images come have an automatic gain control circuit that lowers sensitivity across the FOV when there's anything particularly bright in that FOV -- so you can't compare brightness of dots in one video that has shuttle structure in the FOV with the brightness of objects in another video where only the dots and the distant dim horizon are visible.

The brightness levels of particles in these two scenes cannot be used to make any reliable judgments of the relative sizes and ranges of dots in both videos. RF is convinced that HE can, using some undefined supersense... Sure, and he may also be convinced he invented cellophane, but such personal convictions have no evidentiary validity.

The only gross measure of the range to a dot on a space video that has any relationship to its brightness is to see how its lighting condition -- sunlit or dark -- changes. Noting that it becomes visible simo with sunrise at the shuttle (as the STS-48 blips do) indicates that the object is relatively close to the shuttle -- fractions of miles rather than hundreds of miles.

Also, very close-in particles can be dark by being inside the shuttle's shadow, and 'appear' suddenly when the drift out of that shadow. This also happens a lot in the purported 'UFO videos', and explains the phenomenon of 'UFO flies out from behind a cloud' misinterpretations.

This situation obtains far more frequently than you might think, because the shuttle often is pointing a camera 'down sun' deliberately, to spot lightning events on the dark horizon. So the camera's line-of-sight is, for the first several feet or tens of feet, passing through the 'dark zone' where ordinary particles can drift, unseen, until they get far enough away to entire sunlight which is streaming past the shuttle. But if all you are seeing is the still-dark Earth surface in the distance, it's hard to realize that you (the shuttle and cameras) are already bathed in bright sunlight.

This dark zone only exists for a few minutes every 90-minute orbit, until the shuttle passes into sunlight and then over sunlit regions of the ground -- and reflected ground light 'fills in' the shadow zone making particles visible there, too.

Yet this very unique interval happens, just 'happens', to be the time space when the most spectacular 'shuttle UFO videos' occur.

Why? Not coincidence, I suggest, but cause and effect -- the special lighting conditons create the spectacular apparitions from normal occurrences (drifting nearby particles) that at other places in the orbit aren't nearly as visually impressive.

The 'UFO interpretation' of these videos has NO explanation for this unusual situational concentration of top events. None -- except maybe 'bizarre coincidence'. For the 'prosaic explanation', it is a natural consequence of the prosaic mechanism creating such scenes.

But nowhere on the 'net or youtube, ANYWHERE, have I seen any UFO promotional video point out those illumination conditions -- and what they imply. Is it just ignorance -- or coverup, do you suppose? If you want to promote the UFO interpretation, obviously you do NOT want your audience to know the illumination conditions the video was originally made under.

So you don't tell them -- and, like RF here, you mock people who do.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Ah but thats assuming that all the particles pictured are of the same substance. As has been suggested in this thread already, different substances react differently to stimulus. Could be that there was a single particle of say for instance a metal , and a large number of gas particles. I mean without knowing exactly what was being vented, or released there, its hard to make a proper examination, but you really shouldnt utterly rule this out until/unless we figure out what exactly was released.


I have not completely ruled out anything...I just dont happen to put ice particle or waste dump at the top of the list of what I believe it could be at this time, simply because of how that one object amongst the rest is moving as it does.

I have looked for shuttle thruster flash in the STS 114 video. No thruster flash. I have looked for another object hitting the object in question, no impact is evident. I have considered the solar wind effect, gravity effect, and even the latest theory thrown out here, the curved trajectory nonsense and what keeps me from accepting ANY of those as the cause is that this one lone object is the only thing manuvering in the manner that it does.

I just dont see any of the proposed theories applicable to this particular object's activity in the STS 114 video. If there was at the very least 1 other object in that video that also manuvered in a similar fashion as we see with the object in question, then I would give more consideration to their moving caused by some solar wind or gravity pull or thruster blast. But a thruster blast is always evident by a flash. The flash is the first clue to saying the movement was caused by a thruster blast.



Cheers!!!



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg



En-TIRE-ly satisfied, RF. We have now established beyond any doubt
that nothing you ever claim about space shuttle operations is ever
remotely credible. Self-delusion and fantasy, nothing more, always was.



Either you are selectively blind or just so overwhelmed by the evidence against you that you think your still correct and hide behind false confidence.

Well all you have to do is simply examine the shuttle mission history. Some of which were posted by Zorgon which clearly points out what I pointed out earlier, and you keep refusing to accept that.

Not my problem that you have a problem. It is quite apparent now that you only want to argue with me and others who dont accept your little theories and not take it up with your former employer. Are you still under their thumb by chance? For someone who started out in this thread saying they left NASA because of their dishonesty in safety, which we all know was the case on more than one occaision, you seem to be quite defensive for NASA when it comes to this 1 particular video.

I find that not just unusual, but also highly suspicious that you are not completely free of NASA's leash. You are just on an extended one and they tug at it when they want you to chime in to go against the majority belief.

And yes...it is the majority who do not follow the nonsense explanations. That is the reality of the situation. Im sorry that it dings your bell that much but thats how it is.

Deny all you want. Just dont expect everyone to blindly follow your lead off the denial cliff.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
But a thruster blast is always evident by a flash. The flash is the first clue to saying the movement was caused by a thruster blast.


Since this is so obviously not true -- like most other things RF says about shuttle operations -- the rest of his argument collapses.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Well you gentlemen can relax , ive found the culprit , Seems there is 1 rogue "ice particle" in space causing all the confusion , So I call my m8s at NASA to persuade him to leave, Notice how our Best and Finest on this Billion dollar craft follow this rogue "ice particle" with the camera after a shot from Ronnies Ray Gun
Like Rodney King said "Why dont we all just get along"



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
But a thruster blast is always evident by a flash. The flash is the first clue to saying the movement was caused by a thruster blast.


Since this is so obviously not true -- like most other things RF says about shuttle operations -- the rest of his argument collapses.


And DOF says I am desperate.


Apparently you have no clue how a thruster works. Thrusters are small versions of the rocket engines like those found on the ass end of the shuttle. They fire small bursts of ignited propellant, which if you look at any shuttle video when a thruster fires, you will always see the thruster flash, in normal visual mode video and UV videos.

Maybe study up on the engineering aspects of how thrusters work might help you in this situation.

No Admittance Seems Apparent.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Thrusters are small versions of the rocket engines like those found on the ass end of the shuttle. They fire small bursts of ignited propellant, which if you look at any shuttle video when a thruster fires, you will always see the thruster flash, in normal visual mode video and UV videos.


Since the subject of the thrusters and flashes have come up, it might be good to know what these flashes look like. This is from STS-118, and you can see a flash right in the beginning of the video.




new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join